Cannabis : a discussion paper.

  • South Australia. Royal Commission into the Non-medical Use of Drugs
Date:
1978
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Cannabis : a discussion paper. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    24/140 page 18
    addictive drug and in moderate doses causes no serious harm. However, it does have effects on skills such as those required for driving, and its action may be increased when taken in combination with other drugs. It is almost certainly harmful to some extent in high doses. It would therefore seem that the principal interest of the community lies in discouraging irresponsible use (for example, use in combination with alcohol, or with the driving a motor vehicle) and excessive use (for example, the regular, sustained use of high potency material). It is striking that in 1894 the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission stated its policy in very similar terms: The policy advocated is one of control and restriction, aimed at suppressing the excessive use and restraining the moderate use within due limits.’ A CAUTION A statement of conclusions in this form does not resolve all the policy questions we face. The evidence we have received can be interpreted to support a range of social policies, depending on the perspective of the observer. Information, particularly in such a sensitive area as non-medical drug use, cannot be presented in a vacuum. The recipients of the information have their own values and priorities and they will evaluate the material in the light of those values and priorities. This point was explained to us in a research report which discussed the giving of factual information on drugs in the context of attempts to change behaviour patterns.” The way people feel about an issue and related issues, as well as what people currently believe to be true, influences their response to new information . . If information is presented which does not fit readily into the existing belief- attitude system a number of strategies may be used to deal with it. The inform- ation may be rejected as irrelevant or unimportant, distorted so that it fits existing preconceptions, or used as a stimulus to seek further information in an effort to decide whether to accept or reject it. The first two strategies are more likely to be used than the third... An example of the way in which the presentation of factual information alone is of limited value when influencing behaviour [is this]. If it was to be shown from a well-executed survey, that marijuana was in common use in Adelaide this would confirm the views of those supporting and condemning its use. Both groups would feel impelled to follow opposing actions based on the same information—one group seeking law reform of a law perceived to be unenforce- able, and the other seeking increased penalties. Similarly, those who regard the use of cannabis as an uplifting or enjoyable experience can interpret the evidence we have presented as supporting the conclusion that legal controls on cannabis should be relaxed. They could have drawn the same conclusion from nearly all the reported inquiries cited on p. 2. It is, after all, clear that cannabis is not as harmful as is often believed and the risk of excessive or irresponsible use may well be seen, within a free society, as insufficient to justify total prohibition of the drug. On the other hand, someone taking the view that a ‘new’ recreational drug which may have some harmful effects should not be accorded any
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3